Posted
by
timothy
on Thursday November 05, 2015 @10:35AM
from the upsides-and-downsides dept.

EmagGeek writes: The full text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, has been officially released, and is available for the public to see. According to CNN, The TPP is a 12-nation deal that touches on 40% of the global economy. The provisions of the deal would knock down tariffs and import quotas, making it cheaper to import and export, and open new Asia-Pacific markets. Negotiations have been going on for years, led by the United States and Japan — with China conspicuously absent from the list of signees.

So the TPP is all about movies, drugs, and sex that one partner enjoys way more than the other?

Sure, if you mean using date rape drugs and filming it... because that's pretty much what this stupid deal is doing to us.

It's a grab bag of stuff from the wishlist of multinational corporations, pushed through by people who are more beholden to corporate profits than their own citizens, and largely written by the industries it benefits.

Mark my words, this really is just more "race to the bottom" crap, and won't benefit citizens.

Yes, but the naysayers, like the one you replied to, don't have enough. They are entitled to more, for less, and with greater ease. They do, indeed, feel this way and then have the temerity to cite greed, ego, and others as being both to blame and morally reprehensible. Things are not exactly how they want them so they're qualified to opine and are important enough to restructure society to fit their desires. But no, it's the other side that is greedy, self-centered, and manipulative.

This agreement is mostly about giving corporations a wish list of things which in general won't benefit citizens.

Because America are so fucking beholden to corporate interests they're pretty much fucking over the world to benefit multinational corporations. Stupid shit like being able to sue governments if they don't like how a law impacts them.

Thanks, assholes, for letting your corrupt politicians on the payroll of corporations

You're welcome? It's not like we (citizens) have any say in what our government does. That's the greatest illusion in history. Federal elections are decided by who has the most money from "Special interests". Local and state government elections are all about who you know (read: money changing hands) And we all hoot and rave about how democracy is great and we're free. We are free to do as THEY say. We have the right to get our property taken by them, we have the right to expect no real privacy, we have the

You're welcome? It's not like we (citizens) have any say in what our government does. That's the greatest illusion in history. Federal elections are decided by who has the most money from "Special interests".

The older I get, the more I reject that notion. Sure, the media is manipulating you and election season is a three ring circus, and yes, there is undoubtedly election fraud that nudges things a bit, but in the end, the people still vote, and the people elect the government they deserve. Everyone pretty much agrees with YOUR statement, "special interests blah blah blah" but upwards of 90% of you (at least the ones that vote) KEEP VOTING FOR THE SAME PEOPLE! What the fuck do you expect is going to happen?

Douglas Adams summed the situation up really well in So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish:

“On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people.”

“Odd,” said Arthur, “I thought you said it was a democracy.”

“I did,” said Ford. “It is.”

“So,” said Arthur, hoping he wasn’t sounding ridiculously obtuse, “why don’t the people get rid of the lizards?”

“It honestly doesn’t occur to them,” said Ford. “They’ve all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they’ve voted in more or less approximates to the government they want.”

“You mean they actually vote for the lizards?”

“Oh yes,” said Ford with a shrug, “of course.”

“But,” said Arthur, going for the big one again, “why?”

“Because if they didn’t vote for a lizard,” said Ford, “the wrong lizard might get in.”

i think the real culprit is the concept of winning.no one wants to vote for a candidate that will lose. Bernie is a perfect example for the dems, most dems like him but think he will lose so they will vote for Hank so Hank can then beat Bubba and then they can say yayyyy we won.

The older I get, the more I reject that notion. Sure, the media is manipulating you and election season is a three ring circus, and yes, there is undoubtedly election fraud that nudges things a bit, but in the end, the people still vote, and the people elect the government they deserve. Everyone pretty much agrees with YOUR statement, "special interests blah blah blah" but upwards of 90% of you (at least the ones that vote) KEEP VOTING FOR THE SAME PEOPLE! What the fuck do you expect is going to happen?

The problem with the US elections has nothing to do with money (at least not directly) or whether people are capable of deciding who to vote for.

I'll prove it with this statement... why don't you run for office???

I'll wait while you form a response....

I'll bet the reasons fell into either it doesn't interest you, you can't afford to take the time off, you don't want the public scrutiny, you don't think you could get elected, you are too busy, or a ton of other reasons.

I have been, effectively, throwing my vote away for about 40 years. I vote for a third party candidate or write one in, almost without exception. Good God, half the people I vote for would be horrific if they were elected! I vote third party, not because I want them to win. I vote because I know that there's someone compiling statistics and that if enough of us do it then they'll eventually notice and pander to those of us who want more than two choices. Hell, I've voted for Nader!

Negotiations have been going on for years, led by the United States and Japan — with China conspicuously absent from the list of signee

One might almost view this as a partnership between all the non-china countries on the pacific rim to compete with the growing Chinese economy. While it is good for corporations, it reduces economic friction (tariffs, etc.) and makes it easier for everyone to compete with them. I am not sure that I am for this agreement, but I can see why it might have been created.

A bear and a rabbit are in the woods, behind a tree, taking a shit. The bear turns to the rabbit and says, "You know. I have this problem, shit really sticks to my fur. It makes it tough to clean up afterwards."

Or you can focus on the file containing the topic likely to be of most interest to Slashdot readers: intellectual property [mfat.govt.nz]. A quick search through the chapter turned up the following section on the public domain:

Article 18.15: Public Domain
1. The Parties recognise the importance of a rich and accessible public domain.
2. The Parties also acknowledge the importance of informational materials, such
as publicly accessible databases of registered intellectual property rights that assist in
the identification of subject matter that has fallen into the public domain.

The agreement merely asks countries to "recognise" [sic] and "acknowledge" the importance of the public domain. This contrasts with the provisions on copyright and patents, which demand compliance in many instances, including the following example on "Criminal Procedures and Penalties" (Art. 18.77):

Each Party shall provide for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied at
least in cases of wilful trademark counterfeiting or copyright or related rights piracy on a commercial scale.

The definition of "commercial scale" is particularly troubling: "significant acts, not carried out for commercial advantage or financial gain, that have a substantial prejudicial impact on the interests of the
copyright or related rights holder in relation to the marketplace."

The agreement merely asks countries to "recognise" [sic] and "acknowledge" the importance of the public domain. This contrasts with the provisions on copyright and patents, which demand compliance in many instances, including the following example on "Criminal Procedures and Penalties" (Art. 18.77):

That hits the nail on the head... All the parts that screw people over are iron clad, specified to the extreme while all the consumer, labor, environmental protections are all fluffy piles of bull shit wrapped in language you could drive a truck full of slaves through to their coal fired baby seal killing factory.

Do you want to outlaw something traded under this agreement in your own country?Nope! Your government will be tried in an international court!

Want to legalize something not legal in this agreement or buy it from a supplier not under the agreement while one who is under it sells it at a higher price?Nope! Your government will be tried in an international court!

Trade is only the excuse for this agreement. Just like the patriot act and affordable care act specifics are so vague it to allow any interpretation desired by those who head up the agreement. It's also structures in such a way that nations not complying with changes afterward will be punished. This is not an "agreement" as it's called, it's a treaty. Notice corporation wrote most of it.

This is the official handing over of the government to corporations. It's been happening in practice, but that pesky constitution and balance of powers occasionally gets in the way. This is the bypass for it.

If you DON'T bully your representatives, beg, plead and even threaten them to keep this from passing we're all going to be part of the "expanded EU".

Do you want to outlaw something traded under this agreement in your own country?Nope! Your government will be tried in an international court!

It's not even a court. It's an ad-hoc panel that consists of private lawyers. Worse: very expensive lawyers that spend most of their time representing parties in front of similar panels. They can even rule over complaints filed by parties that they have previously represented.

The goal of this treaty is to central world government - even if it's not outright stated. In general I'm against outlawing most anything, but that dictate shouldn't come from a different bunch of control freaks. In general I'm for as decentralized power as we can get. The whole idea of tiered government instead of monolithic is when decisions are made locally you know exactly who to nab at the grocery store so you can tar and feather them in the parking lot. I

I agree with you there, but I don't have any problem whatsoever with a government, at any level, agreeing not to commit acts of tyranny over any of its citizens—even if a majority of its citizens are in favor of such acts. Even if it does come at the behest of big, bad multinational corporations, in this one rare instance the TPP has the effect of enhancing the sovereignty of individual citizens over all the levels of government that would try to rule them.

"The same effect... in reverse." You mean the opposite effect? Empowering governments—and thus, indirectly, the corporations they represent—at the expense of individual citizens?

I think I made it clear that I think most of TPP is awful. Since they insisted that it be pass/fail via the fast-track process, I think that it should be unceremoniously rejected. Even without that, I doubt it could be amended into anything worth passing. However, any government giving up the power to make a product or

I wish more people understood it the way you do. In the USA, the law is that Congress cannot bind a future Congress to enact any particular policy. This is an end-run around this law by those who want to permanently cement their place at the top of the pyramid.

By the way, Trump and Sanders both oppose TPP. Clinton was for it before she was against it::ducks::

Ted Cruz scares me - he was also for it because he was against it. He's done too much flip-flopping for me to be comfortable with him. I honestly believe the members of the Republican party that are libertarians trying to bring the party in line with freedom are a good thing. Rand Paul, his father before him, there's a couple of others. Cruz scares me because he looks like one of that bunch - but does stupid crap on occasion that makes me think he's a poser, and he's got a more solid following than a lo

So, Clinton may have favored it, learned more about it, and decided against it? Here at Slashdot, I'd expect people to be more sympathetic towards changing minds.

Also, it's a treaty according to the Constitution when ratified by two-thirds of the Senate, not otherwise. It can be passed into law by a majority vote in both houses plus a Presidential signature, but that is US law and not an international commitment. There may be a reluctance to repeal it, but there's no legal reason why Congress couldn't

No treaty is unbreakable. You don't lose sovereignty. The government can break a treaty, then wouldn't be required to show up in international court.

Treaties are above all law, other than the Constitution. You can't end-run around the Constitution, but a treaty can give more power to the government, in direct violation of the 10th Amendment, But the Supreme Court has ruled that the 9th and 10th Amendments are legally void, vague and redundant.

How long has it been since the president or congress has given a shit about the 4th, 9th, or 10th?

How long has it been since the supreme court actually respected the 9th or 10th in a ruling?

Ever single regulatory agency in existence is an end run around the 9th and 10th. As long as the people in power are the ones placed by the corporate interest that want this treaty then we will have this treaty. After this treaty has been in place 15 or so years it will be so concrete it will be next to impossible to g

As long as the people at the top aren't the same people funded by people like George Soros who want it in place. Right now the top executive positions in the U.S. government and those in the Republicrat party (as in the single party establishment masquerading as separate parties) want it. We will have to put people in power to replace them who have the backbone to stand up to it.

There's a sever lack of backbone in most who get elected, then the ones who have it get chased out of office.

Backbone has nothing to do with it.
This is all about money. Plain and simple.
You seem to think our elected representatives actually care for the interests of those who voted for them.
They care about those who fund their campaigns.

Right... Soros. Easy scapegoat. You know I'm surprised you would use a phrase like "Replublicrat" and then try to pawn it off on a left leaning billionaire.
Where do the Koch brothers fall in your worldview?
Are they Republicrats, or are they the ones with "backbone" you're waiting for to come and save us?

Well, here's the problem with all of this: this was a treaty America wanted, actively pushed it as being important, and allowed industry to write most of it (like all US laws and treaties are written by industry).

America pushed this on the rest of the world, not the other way around.

If there's a treaty expanding copyright terms and otherwise giving corporations the upper hand, it's being championed by Americans, and pushed on other countries.

Sorry, but this is hardly the first treaty the US has championed which only serves corporate interests. And the rest of the world has no sympathy when Americans suddenly say how bad this treaty is -- because it's your government who pushed for it.

Your government has been so thoroughly coopted to serve the interests of huge multinationals, you should be yelling at your own politicians, instead of acting tough by saying you'll grow a pair and tell the world this is an unfair treaty. We already know this.

Why do Americans keep thinking this is being done to you by other countries? It's your own politicians who drive this crap.

So don't whine about your sovereignty, because this is what the rest of the world has been dealing with for years. And it usually is the US threatening trade sanctions if we don't give up OUR sovereignty for YOUR interests.

Cry us a river, you're not the only ones getting fucked over here. But you have been driving the bus.

America pushed this on the rest of the world, not the other way around.

That is BS. Japan's Abe and Canada's Trudeau [theglobeandmail.com] are out there pushing it. Japan needs TPP because it is is another weapon to beat up their entrenched special business interests. Canada wants to expand exports to Asia.

You do realize that "Canada's Trudeau" has only been in power for like, two days, right? He literally started yesterday morning. If you want to blame a Canadian leader for TPP, blame Harper like the Canadians do.

I looked at the Intellectual Property section and didn't see anything obviously bad that isn't already in another treaty. (It even has nice words about the Public Domain and the purpose of copyright and patent law, that at least get the principles written down in an agreement.)

Well, here's the problem with all of this: this was a treaty America wanted, actively pushed it as being important, and allowed industry to write most of it (like all US laws and treaties are written by industry).

America pushed this on the rest of the world, not the other way around.

If there's a treaty expanding copyright terms and otherwise giving corporations the upper hand, it's being championed by Americans, and pushed on other countries.

Sorry, but this is hardly the first treaty the US has championed which only serves corporate interests. And the rest of the world has no sympathy when Americans suddenly say how bad this treaty is -- because it's your government who pushed for it.

Your government has been so thoroughly coopted to serve the interests of huge multinationals, you should be yelling at your own politicians, instead of acting tough by saying you'll grow a pair and tell the world this is an unfair treaty. We already know this.

Why do Americans keep thinking this is being done to you by other countries? It's your own politicians who drive this crap.

So don't whine about your sovereignty, because this is what the rest of the world has been dealing with for years. And it usually is the US threatening trade sanctions if we don't give up OUR sovereignty for YOUR interests.

Cry us a river, you're not the only ones getting fucked over here. But you have been driving the bus.

**************
Let's get a few things out in the open:

1) This thing ( as are most things worth knowing ) was kept secret from everyone including those Americans you seem to rather enjoy putting all the blame on. *2) For non-Americans, does your government listen to you ? Can you talk, call, or email your Representative and actually make a difference ?

Yeah, us either. There are only two ways to get noticed:

A) Extreme Violence will get everyone's attention. Make sure what you need to say is short, because your life is going to be a rather short one as well.B) Extreme amounts of money to buy any legislation you want

If you wield neither method, you're just another peon in a sea of peons that will never have a voice.

So guess who our Representatives DO listen to ? Yep, the very same corporations who both wrote the draft and will benefit from it.

So, I'm curious. Short of an armed revolution, what would you propose we Americans** do to remedy this situation ? Seeing as how our government doesn't bother listening to anyone other than their Sugar Daddy corporations with unlimited funding, I am truly curious as to what steps you would recommend taking.I know ! Maybe we should do another Occupy Movement ! Because that worked out so well the last time we tried it:|

Tip: Protests are a laughable waste of time as evidenced by the aforementioned Occupy Movement. Once they tire of your silliness, they'll declare you to be a hazard, terrorist, nun-killer, whatever and remove you and your fellow protesters by force. Resist, and watch them grin ear-to-ear as any restrictions they may have had are removed and their behavior turns lethal.

* The American Government does not represent the will of the people any longer. Hasn't for a long time. Anyone claiming otherwise is naive.

**The extremely small fraction of the populace that even still gives a shit are far outnumbered by those that do not. As their votes are just as powerful as mine, Quantity > Quality. We lose. Every. F*cking. Time.

So, to conclude, make sure you understand where the f*cking blame really sits and that the American Government represents only the American Government in all matters. They could give two shits about what anyone else thinks. ( Including their own citizens )

Remember that only 2 people are against this: Trump and Sanders. The Clinton's gave us NAFTA and fully supported this agreement as the gold standard. The Republicans always push for "free trade". For the sake of yourselves and your children vote either Trump or Sanders. If it weren't for "free trade" we'd all be making approximately double what we are now as shown here:

Protectionism is a good way to make an economy poor. People have this ideal that they'll make twice as much salary and have a bigger piece of the pie, except they don't realize the pie just gets smaller.

On the domestic scale sure on the international scale not always the case. What you have said has been in the economics text books so long most people accept it uncritically but it fails to consider the long term effects of trade imbalances.

Generally with a nation as large and divers as ours with an array of resources as vast as ours one would be tempted to think trade imbalances could not occur but they do. The problem the free traders consistently fail to deal with is that the economies of our trading partners are not in many cases as market oriented as our own and our own economy is not really a true open market anymore either. The rules over and above the enforcement of private property rights create opportunities to game the system and so the system gets gamed.

If we were to:Drop the new Obamacare employer mandatesDrop the individual mandateDrop all payroll and corporate taxesReplace income taxes with a flat taxEither rollback health/safety and environmental protections -or- restrict trade to nations with comparable regulation and enforcement

Then we could have free trade with the remaining partners. Otherwise the ability to game the system is always going to temp people to shop the market the imposes the least penalty for the negative externalizes of whatever it is they do and lowest cost labor while still selling the output of that production into the more lucrative American market and enjoying the gifts of our society themselves. Their will be a net outflow of wealth until the US reaches nearer equilibrium in terms of median personal wealth with the rest of the world. I know there are many on the left of the political graph who think there is Justice in that, and may influencers on the Right side who don't care because they are 1%ers doing the gaming and don't care what happens to the rest of us.

Personally I'd rather the USA stay the worlds richest nation! That is almost certain to be whats best for me, my family, and my friends. I have no desire to try and hold any other nation down or prevent the expansion of the middle class around the world. Good luck to them, but I see no reason we need to give away what's ours to enable that. Now some lefties are going to return to say we unfairly came by what we have. Yes okay maybe if you want to say we took the land from the Natives, but other than that no not really if you look at the whole of those situations and the alternatives.

What you have said has been in the economics text books so long most people accept it uncritically but it fails to consider the long term effects of trade imbalances.

So what are the long term effects of trade imbalances? The US has had a trade deficit with the world for 35 years, yet we still are the center of global entrepreneurism, have plenty of massive global companies like Google, continue to increase our manufacturing output, and have high growth rates and low unemployment rates in comparison with mo

Coincidentally the middle class has been declining for roughly the same time. Also unless you are completely unaware of history you will note that workers now put in *far* more hours than they use to. Why is that? Race to the bottom. If China et al are willing to put in more time than so should we. Ultimately we can have a happier lifestyle via protectionism or we can sink to the lowest standards the planet has to offer.
Regarding economists and free trade, you know full well economists have contrived

Nobody knows that stuff because economics is based on the idea of value, rather than wealth. They even measure productivity in dollars; economics theories are all targeted at predicting the shelf price of goods and services, not the state of an economy.

Productivity forms the basis of wealth economics. Everything requires human labor to produce; we can mitigate this by many factors, ranging from advanced techniques (technology: the science of improved techniques) to simply finding an available limited supply.

For example: humans can produce gold by producing electricity and using that to run a fusor to convert vaporized lead base metal ions to gold by fusion with hydrogen; this requires so much la

I've actually been working on a lengthy explanation of economics based in the generation of wealthy economic systems--wealthy nations. The problem is all existing economics are basically merchant and accountant shit: they try to predict prices, and call that economics. Nobody really has theories about the cost of labor, the market impact of cyclical improvement, what inflation actually is, why we can have welfare and what determines what kind of welfare system we have, or even what causes scarcity and su

Repeal the 16th in an amendment that allows for a national sales tax, but leaves in revenue tax for corporations, as well as a land tax on the states (not the people within them) and a head tax on the states (not the people within them).

The original idea was that the states would tax, but the feds wouldn't. Instead the fed would essentially charge the states for the cost of them. This was well tied in with the idea that senators were selected by the states, not the people within.

I am small government conservative and I don't hate those ideas. You are correct about the tax the states plan being the original assumption about how the Federal Government was to be funded. The trouble is the Civil War happened! For good or ill (mostly ill IMHO) one of the things that came out of that is people started seeing the USA as a single entity rather than a group of member states.

Americans are already upset about the economic disparities that exist today. What say West Virgina look like witho

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is signed into law by President Bill Clinton. Clinton said he hoped the agreement would encourage other nations to work toward a broader world-trade pact.

The key word is "ceremonially". As the treaty had not even been ratified by the Senate by that time, the ceremonial signing meant nothing. As the verye article you link to states "Bush, who had worked to "fast track" the signing prior to the end of his term, ran out of time and had to pass the required ratification and signing of the implementation law to incoming president Bill Clinton."

While Clinton did not originate NAFTA, he fully supported it: "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American

And not only will this kill us jobs it will also cut off cheap med's as well and then add the GOP 2016 health insurance plan. Now jail / priosin is looking good for people who are job less and need a DR.

Will this thing seriously hit the desk of any president except this one? Also note that your best bet to actually stop TPP is to get your representative and senators on board with voting against it. The "fast track" means that Congress can't try to amend or change it in any way, giving them go / no-go vote on it whenever it comes to vote (now that the draft is public, I would assume this will occur as fast as they can to minimize the time for the mainstream media to report it as anything but a "trade deal

As inequality grows and the prospects for a nice middle class lifestyle get smaller people will get desperate and what formerly would have been inconceivable suddenly looks reasonable. This is not new and is a sign that things are getting seriously out of whack. I'm voting Trump or Sanders solely on the "free trade" issue. I expect that Hillary will ultimately win since the media has been clear about who they expect to get elected and has been manipulating everything in her favor once she started to seri

Yearlong secrecy, closed doors, only some "chosen few" have a say and can vote... as it appears. What really is going on, nobody knows but one can only guess who will be benefiting from all that stuff.

Late capitalism symptoms, assets are accumulated on certain layers of entities developing their own laws and procedures ballooning even more.

Are actions performed benefiting the general population as a whole - hardly. Common sense actions are prevented and converted to serve those new laws in use harming inst

Includes not only Bernie, Hillary, Warren, Unions, and Environmentalists; but some Conservatives are referring to it as "Obamatrade". Not quite ringing support from the Conservatives. The overall vote might be dicey if the Dems and independents abandon Obama and pick up a modicum amount of support from the Republicans.

6,000 pages is ridiculous, how is anybody supposed to fully understand and agree to that. It is just a way hide important detail in a ocean of boredom.

Took years to even negotiate, but they want congress to just rubber stamp it. How about this... as soon as every congressman is able to pass a comprehensive test detailing the bills text, then they can be allowed to vote on this.

This is such an over-reach, especially the intellectual property parts, it's going to lead to mass civil disobedience in the form of a fundamental attitudinal shift from one of basically respecting the law to one of basically disrespecting it *on the part of everyone* including society's intellectuals, academics and cultural leaders.

That's the deeper danger of this kind of law making, not to mention the content of the law itself. It leads to contempt for the law, contempt for Congress , the Executive and the Judiciary. Contempt leads to mass, defacto civil disobedience where ignoring or subverting the law becomes the norm, as in the days of prohibition.

What, in the IP section, is worse than treaties and statutes that are already US law? There hasn't been mass civil disobedience (there has been massive lawbreaking, but that's not the same thing) over those.

What, in the IP section, is worse than treaties and statutes that are already US law? There hasn't been mass civil disobedience (there has been massive lawbreaking, but that's not the same thing) over those.

It mandates ISP monitoring and reporting, because since RIAA and MPAA can't figure out how to do it, they figure the ISPs should have to work as unpaid employees to figure it out for them.

The reporting part means your ISP is no longer a common carrier, because they are required to tattle on people specifically.

It transfers said information without a warrant or court order.

Technically, this was designed to enforce copyright in NZ and Australia, and is basically a ratification of some of the things that Telst

New Zealand's tariff elimination schedule is pretty straight forward. It shows what it currently is and what it will be up to 7 years out (most are completely eliminated the first year.)

On the US's schedule, it lists the "base rate" which I assume is what it is right now sans TPP, and then columns representing the other countries, which all say "EIF". Does anyone know what that stands for? Does that mean that for those countries the tariff is eliminated completely?

Read it and weep. TTIP and TISA yet to go. This was all planned back in 1985 when the Masters of the Universe began the Narrative and implemented several measures to discourage women from tech careers.

I don't know about you, but I don't think He-Man and his crew sought to discourage women from employment in certain fields. His actions appeared to be fairly progressive for the mid-80's. After all, his twin sister had basically the same job in a male-dominated career of villain foiling and he seemed perfectly fine with that.

Of course, I didn't read anything but would love someone to tell me if this affects NAFTA in any way...

It does, actually. It puts you in a very bad spot because while the principle in general is if two treaties contradict, the treaty ratified later has precedence, it doesn't mean that's always true. And many a trade dispute has happened because of it and the interpretation of which treaties are in effect. And naturally, when there's a contradiction, you get long drawn out lawsuits and cases as everyone argu

from this "deal", because they know better than throwing themselves under the American's bus.

The Chinese are absent from this deal because they get whatever the deal gives to anyone else the U.S. trades with for free, without having to make concessions on their side of the table. The Chinese have MFN - Most Favored Nation - status, which means that the U.S. can not apply restrictions, nor charge more tariff, to China, as it does to the least restricted and tariffed trading partner.

In addition, this give the Chinese an "American Hole", in the same way that NAFTA gave the U.S. a "Mexican Hole". If

Wait for Aljazeera to pop something up. They'll have bias but it will be obvious and the reporting will be accurate where something like this is concerned. Don't rely on a single news source. The EFF might pop up some review at some point, it too will have biases. The truth will lie somewhere between and probably closer to the Aljazeera side.